If you had a thousand dollars or thereabouts to spend, would you get this lens or the 12mm 2.0 and the 45mm 1.8 for the same amount of money?
36978
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses.UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
36979
I personally went with this lens - great MF clutch, focuses closely, fast AF, weather sealing, great IQ and very useful range.
36980
I have the 12mm and the Voightlander 42.5mm. I hate that the 12mm isn't weather sealed so I tried the 12-50mm but it isn't very good. I decided to sell the 12mm and get the 12-40mm based on the reviews as far as the IQ on this lens and my need for the weather sealing. It also very convenient to have a quality zoom.
36981
It's not a simple choice. I sold my 12 f2 lens to get the 12-40mm. It all depends of what you are trying to accomplish. The 12-40mm is a very versatile lens which is sharper at 12mm than the 12mm at f2.8. The trade off would be losing a bit of speed from the 12mm for the sake of the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often. I kept the 45mm f.18 because it is superior than the 12-40mm in terms of resolution and depth of field which will get you much better results for portraits. Having said that, if my budget would be $1000, I would get the 12-40mm. You will be delighted with this lens. It's just awesome!I hope this helps. It's not a simple choice. I sold my 12 f2 lens to get the 12-40mm. It all depends of what you are trying to accomplish. The 12-40mm is a very versatile lens which is sharper at 12mm than the 12mm at f2.8. The trade off would be losing a bit of speed from the 12mm for the sake of the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often. I kept the 45mm f.18 because it is superior than the 12-40mm in terms of resolution and depth of field which will get you much better results for portraits. Having said that, if my budget would be $1000, I would get the 12-40mm. You... » Read More It's not a simple choice. I sold my 12 f2 lens to get the 12-40mm. It all depends of what you are trying to accomplish. The 12-40mm is a very versatile lens which is sharper at 12mm than the 12mm at f2.8. The trade off would be losing a bit of speed from the 12mm for the sake of the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often. I kept the 45mm f.18 because it is superior than the 12-40mm in terms of resolution and depth of field which will get you much better results for portraits. Having said that, if my budget would be $1000, I would get the 12-40mm. You will be delighted with this lens. It's just awesome!I hope this helps. « Show Less
36982
It depends on what you photograph and how you do it:Primes -- better for low light, but aren't weather-sealed, and you have to swap between them (not good if things are happening quickly).This lens -- a bit more than a full stop slower (optically), but sealed (good for outdoor shots with unpredictable weather), and zooms so it's an excellent walk-around lens.
36983
I already had the 17mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8 which are great for low light. I decided to buy the 12-40mm f2.8 because it is weather sealed and a great workaround lens. If I had to decide I would choose the 12-40mm lens. Just be aware that you loose a little more than a stop of light when compared to the primes.
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
36985
I would wait for this to appear on the GetOlympus site again refurbished, and buy it for $650. It's a great lens.
36986
I have most of the primes along with many of the zooms. This lens is the lens I use the most. With the $1,000 budget I would just get this lens for sure. Those primes are great but this would be the best if you have that limitation. Then later add a prime if you have more budget. Unless you have a very specific purpose for the 12 and 45 prime this is the way to go but if you are asking this question I would assume the specific primes are not necessary in comparison to the versatility you will get with the 12-40.
1705280
Awesome. Although for the MarkIII, I would get the same 85mm LSeries lens. Costs more.
1901982
Soccer Hoolian nailed it, get both. The 50mm is irreplacable and I adore my 1.8, it's just louder and more plastic-feeling than the 1.4
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
173418
Hi, I was faced with the same dilemma last year. I chose 14-45. It is a sharp lens with good auto focus and stabilization. I use it mainly as a travel lens and photograph historical monuments.Prakash
1211478
I don't think so. I have both and the size difference is huge. If I just want to carry a small, fast portrait lens the 45 f1.8 is the go to choice (especially for the money).
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
766815
Personally I wish I had gotten the 18-135 as the two DA L lenses are pretty poor quality in comparison, and you actually save money on the 18-135.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
1232658
To me, both are equally good. If you already have the body I'd go with more Sony lens versus buying a second body
1597128
if the lens is not around the $10,499 range then you need to ask the question. I purchased my lens from amazon. It was not a second, and no complaints.
1882833
Just make sure you get the 1 w/ the Nikon mount. It will say if you want a Nikon or Canon? It's a cool lens!
1262995
The nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) will do the same at 100 bucks :) However, you will constrained to shoot with it in tighter/smaller spaces due to longer focal length.
1922080
I love my 35 but my 50mm 1.4 was what I started with and I still love it.:)